Thursday, June 16, 2016

MAPLE RIDGE BC CANADA - DAVE SODERMAN, 58, WAS ATTACKED BY A PIT BULL THAT SOMEONE HAD TIED UP OUTSIDE A STORE - HE WAS BITTEN 7 TIMES- THE NUTTER SHOWED UP, UNTIED HIS PIT AND FLED!!!

A 58-year-old downtown Maple Ridge resident is still recovering after being mauled by a dog June 5 while on a routine errand.

Dave Soderman stopped in to a corner store at Dewdney Trunk Road and 222nd Street to pick up a few things at about 3:45 p.m. that Sunday afternoon.

But as he was leaving the store, he was attacked by a dog.

“I walked out the door and the dog was on me like a dirty shirt,” Soderman said.

“I had no idea the dog was outside.”

He punched and kicked at the animal, but was bitten seven times.

The dog, which he described as a beige and white PIT BULL, was tied up outside on a leash when the attack happened.

The owner soon came out and stopped the dog and apologized, but then untied the dog and left the area.

An ambulance took Soderman to Ridge Meadows Hospital. His injuries included a puncture bite on the hand, a gash on the leg, another on his arm and another on his side (see image). He was off work for a week, but returned to work this Monday.

“Got no choice, have to pay the bills.”

Police were called and his roommate, Lyne Couture, also called the SPCA.

She wants people to know about the attack.

“I just want to do something for the public because it’s not safe.”

After circulating posters about the attack, she was phoned by a mom who said her daughter was also attacked in the downtown area recently by a beige-and-white pit bull. That woman also has filed a report with police.

Couture is still asking if anyone witnessed the attack to contact police.

Ridge Meadows RCMP confirm they responded to the location about a dog on a leash attacking a man around 4 p.m., about 15 minutes after the attack, but couldn’t confirm details about a second dog attack.

The SPCA received a report about the first attack, but hasn’t yet talked to Ridge Meadows RCMP.

The SPCA will need a warrant in order to seize the dog, if found, said Charity Long, of the Maple Ridge branch.

“We have all the information now. We’re just waiting to see if we know who it is.”

1 comment:

At this rate, we might even get some traction on BSL here in BC, what with Québec showing the how and idiots like this conveniently reminding us why.

A nasty attack that never got reported anywhere occurred in my Vancouver neighbourhood last week, according to my favourite mail carrier.

Some people with a pit-Great Dane mix keep it in an unfenced yard with a jury-rigged cage that it escapes regularly. The neighbours say Animal Control is useless. A woman was walking her dog to the park by the high school near where this pit mix lives. Everyone around there knows enough to look ahead and see if it's loose again, so when she saw that it was she crossed the street to avoid it. It waited until she got some way ahead, then crossed the street behind her and attacked. Her dog will need more surgery, but she's OK as far as I know.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.